I know about red and the V1U and all that, but for buying purposes, I figured I'd start a thread about any and all tech specs for all available 1920 X 1080 cameras. Everything from the Canon HV20 to RED. Please everyone spill as much info about as many cameras as are available, so I can get an idea of what's out there. I've heard people say as many as 10 cameras of SI-2K quality are available now, but I'm having a hard time finding them.

Please, for all, everyone list away....

Ones to get started are....

Red Camera

HVX200

Sony V1U

Canon HV 20

SI-2K

Canon XL-H1


All right all, GO FOR IT!

Thanks!

Do you want a list based on sensor size, or recorded signal, or component/HDMI direct output, or what?

For instance, those HDV models in your list arent recording 1920 X 1080 to tape ...

The HVX only has an effective resolution of 960x540 comming from the chips

The HVX only has an effective resolution of 960x540 coming from the chips

And the result is the 720p JVC's offer more resolution.

I think the original poster should clarify what they are trying to determine. Tested TV lines resolution(who actually captures the most resolution), sensor res, or capture format resolution.

some webcam are 1920x1080 now.

I mean anything touted by the manufactuer that made their camera as 1920 X 1080.

Not talking about sensor size or what not.

For instance, HV20 of course is completely out of league compared to RED, but it is TOUTED as 1920 X 1080.

I know we could talk "real resolutions" all day, but what I'm doing is trying to get a good list for budgets of all types. HV20 will not compare with others unless using HDMI etc....and even then.....but, if you only have 12 hundred bucks.....

My main interest is finding out the new slew of 2K cameras to compete with RED and SI-2K, but all others are welcome.

Thanks!

Still not sure what you want -- any HD camcorder, even the lowliest home unit, that offers 1080i (don't they all?) will fall into your category. HD only really offers two options -- 1920x1080 or 1440x720 ...

As others have iterated, some formats can't actually record to that resolution (DVCPro100, HDV) and almost no one offers imaging sensors to offer that resolution ... but everyone claims 1920x1080 as an output format, so what are you looking for?

GB

My main interest is finding out the new slew of 2K cameras to compete with RED and SI-2K, but all others are welcome.

Thanks!


What new slew of 2K cameras?

.....Reality Check.....

Since you are asking this question... I'm guessing that either,
A: You are currently working at 2K resolution and are looking for an option to shooting film.
B: Have clients that are beating down your door for 2K work.
C: You have the budget to shoot in 2K.

Since most of my projects are for professional broadcast, I do not need to work at 2K.
And I only purchase equipment that will pay for itself in a short period of time. It would take more than a few projects to cover the $90K I would need to purchase a fully outfitted RED rig with needed glass.

Good Luck with your list!

There are SO many cameras, and I do understand what some other
list folks are asking about your real intent so as to limit
the amount of time in answering your question.
My list will NOT have all the cameras as there are
too many to keep count and then there are the HD
flavors they shoot in. Suffice it to say that to help
you we need more specifics as to what your goal in
aquiring this information might be.

At the CML party @ NAB some of the cameras were there:

Sony F900
Silicon Imaging SI 2K
Panavision Genesis
Sony F23 (new CineAlta)
Canon XL H1
Canon HV-20
Panasonic AJ-HD3000
Vision Research's Phantom HD(2048 x 1080 @ 1000 frames-per-second)

Some others not there:
Panasonic Varicam (Cinema Series AJ-HDC27F ), HPX-500
Red One (Boris and Natasha had a date under glass in a tent)
Dalsa Origin (Good things do come in BIG packages)
NHK (Japanese National Broadcasting Super HD camera)
Grass Valley Viper film stream
Arri D20 (2880 x 1620 pixels)

Vision Research's Phantom HD(2048 x 1080 @ 1000 frames-per-second)
WHoa...what...why? What is this cam used for..? 1000fps?
Anyways...maybe the original question could be broken up into consumer vs prosumer vs professional versions of true 1980x1080. I kind of think I know what Candace is asking and am also curious. Though HD has been around for some time (??) it's really in the last 5 to 10 years (if that) that most of us have been exposed to it (broadcast, HD TV etc.). Heck...I still don't have an HDTV or subscribe to any HD stations.

The HVX only has an effective resolution of 960x540 comming from the chips

and a measured resolution of about 540 (in both directions). lol.

i have to laugh because this camera looks bad when quoting resolution... which isn't the whole story, becuase the picture is REALLY gorgeous.

that is why pixel count is not a selection criteria.
on specifications, the Sanyo HD1 is a lot better than the HVX

on specifications, the Sanyo HD1 is a lot better than the HVX

Well I'm not so sure about that. Never seen any resolution chart comparo's.

One thing is for certain is that a resolution chart comparison that gives a TVlines resolution, matter more then any resolution format that it was recorded into.
Eg. the HD100 captured higher TVlines resolution than any under $10,0000 HD cam acording to DV.com's Texas shoot-out, despite being a 720p format. If you calculate the HD200/250's 720p60 modes they are offering the same TVlines resolution but with twice the pixels per second. Personally I would rather have 720p60 with high resolution then 1080p30 with low reolution.
Make sense?
Probably not ;>)

grass valley's new infinity series is totally 1920x1080 front to back. Looks like the new panasonic and sony solid state format camera will be too.

What does '1920x1080 from front to back' mean? When the recording format uses a PAR and so can't record to that value -- what would 'front to back' mean in this context?

GB

WHoa...what...why? What is this cam used for..? 1000fps?

You've seen commercials where the bourbon oozes out of the bottle
and splashes so sensuously on the rocks?

High speed HD can also be used for shooting scientific things like bullets
hitting melons and water balloons dropping on people's heads. Cool stuff. There is something to me
that is intriguing about slow motion and time lapse video. The camera
can be so revealing in what it can see compared to the live human eye.

The HVX only has an effective resolution of 960x540 comming from the chips


Siiiigh.

That's just not true.

Siiiigh.

That's just not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panasonic_AG-HVX200

I'm not saying that you should trust everything on the net, but according to wikipedia the resolution of the image sensors is 960x540. That said, I'm sure the camera is capable of caoturing some fantastic images, just not in 1920x1080 resolution.

the new sony 2/3" xdcam as well as the new Pansonic HPX will be 1920x1080 front to back, meaning that the image sensors are putting out 1920x1080 and processing that through to a format that records 1920x1080.

The HVX -- any DVCPro100 format -- records 1440x1080 with a PAR of 1.2 to fill a 1920x1080 frame. I understood the same to be true of XDCAM, which I though used an MPEG2 profile of 1440x1080 ... but I'd be happy to read a reference that refuted this as concerns XDCAM. It is irrefutable with DVCPro100, which has no ability to record 1920x1080 as a native resolution.

Note that this is not determined by the imaging chips, which may be capable of resolutions of 1920x1080 (or more likely actually quite a bit less) -- the recorded resolution is what I'm talking about here.

Which was rather my point ...

GB

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panasonic_AG-HVX200

I'm not saying that you should trust everything on the net, but according to wikipedia the resolution of the image sensors is 960x540. That said, I'm sure the camera is capable of caoturing some fantastic images, just not in 1920x1080 resolution.

the new sony 2/3" xdcam as well as the new Pansonic HPX will be 1920x1080 front to back, meaning that the image sensors are putting out 1920x1080 and processing that through to a format that records 1920x1080.

The CCDs are 960x540.

But CCDs are analog, monochrome devices, not digital. A "pixel" on the CCD does not correspond to a "pixel" in the digital image. That has to do with internal processing of the light. What matters is the final image, and the HVX's 1080 resolution is on par with, or better than, any of the 1/3" cameras.

It should be noted that ReelStreem gets 2K uncompressed off the HVX's chips using their Hydra modification to the HVX, so the HVX, in fact, in recording in 1080 doesn't use the full resolution potential of the chips.

That said, with a half-pixel offset of the red and blue sensors (which is a long-standing industry practice not limited to the HVX200 or Panasonic by any means), you get an "effective" resolution of 1920x1080 from the sensors, anyway.

As someone else pointed out, if CCD pixel count were everything, then a simple 1-chip HV20 should give you a better picture than the HVX200, right? Hardly.

The HPX500, by the way, doesn't have a 1920x1020 chipset, either. Neither does the 2000. The 3000 does.

..........you get an "effective" resolution of 1920x1080 from the sensors, anyway.
The wikipedia article states that "The green CCD in the array is physically shifted 1/2 pixel biaxially to achieve up to 50% higher horizontal and vertical resolution. This would make the theoretical maximum resolution of the image, 1440x810 pixels, even though each CCD has only 960x540 photosites.", and that is backed up by Panasonics own paper on the subject - see http://toshpit.blogs.com/the_toshpit/2006/02/info_for_you.html . (And scroll down to the second table where Panasonic also quote max theoretical resolution - they themselves quote 1440x810 max.)

Note that Panasonic do emphasise that "Certainly this is a theoretical “best case scenario”.....", and for a decent mtf % it's more likely to be around the 1280x720 mark. But as you say, what matters is the final image, and that is in reality around what most of the other 1/3" cameras produce. The point Panasonic make about mtf over the resolved range, versus absolute max resolution is also very valid.

The articles also make clear that the internal processing of the camera is done at 1920x1080 (to make best use of the pixel shift) for very good reasons. That does not mean the chips are at all capable of that resolution, even in the limit. But then neither is any 1/3" camera, and few bigger chip models, let alone codecs capable of recording such a signal.

The wikipedia article states that "The green CCD in the array is physically shifted 1/2 pixel biaxially to achieve up to 50% higher horizontal and vertical resolution. This would make the theoretical maximum resolution of the image, 1440x810 pixels, even though each CCD has only 960x540 photosites.", and that is backed up by Panasonics own paper on the subject - see http://toshpit.blogs.com/the_toshpit/2006/02/info_for_you.html . (And scroll down to the second table where Panasonic also quote max theoretical resolution - they themselves quote 1440x810 max.)

Note that Panasonic do emphasise that "Certainly this is a theoretical “best case scenario”.....", and for a decent mtf % it's more likely to be around the 1280x720 mark. But as you say, what matters is the final image, and that is in reality around what most of the other 1/3" cameras produce. The point Panasonic make about mtf over the resolved range, versus absolute max resolution is also very valid.

The articles also make clear that the internal processing of the camera is done at 1920x1080 (to make best use of the pixel shift) for very good reasons. That does not mean the chips are at all capable of that resolution, even in the limit. But then neither is any 1/3" camera, and few bigger chip models, let alone codecs capable of recording such a signal.


That's why I put the quotation marks around "effective."

But again, a pixel on the CCD does NOT equal a pixel in the image. They are pretty much unrelated. Like I said, they're getting 2K uncompressed (at 4:4:4) off those chips in the Hydra.

Eg. the HD100 captured higher TVlines resolution than any under $10,0000 HD cam acording to DV.com's Texas shoot-out, despite being a 720p format.

Not quite: in terms of measured TVL resolution the Canon XL-H1 trumped it by a slight margin:

http://www.adamwilt.com/HD/4cams-part2.html

But that's not particularly significant, the real question should be what are you trying to do rather than who records what. A recorded resolution of 1920x1080 pixels means nothing if it's coming from a cell phone with a pinhole plastic lens, so resolution isn't the only thing to consider if you're comparing "digital cinema" cameras.

But again, a pixel on the CCD does NOT equal a pixel in the image. They are pretty much unrelated. Like I said, they're getting 2K uncompressed (at 4:4:4) off those chips in the Hydra.
I agree with the first sentence, and in the HVX (like many cameras) there are three things to consider - CCD pixels, "image pixels" (used for internal processing), and recorded pixels.

The HVX processes at 1920x1080 internally before downsampling for recording. Getting directly at the output of that processor will definately give you a 1920x1080 raster to record - but it can never give you any detail beyond about 1440x810, as Panasonics tech paper makes clear: "Spatial Offset technology will improve the resolution by a factor of 1.5 provided the gain in resolution is not offset by the quality of the lens."

The 1440x810 refers to the pixel count, the "resolution," of the CCD, not the processed image. As you agree, they're not the same thing.

In any case, you might want to check with ReelStreem, because they're pulling 2K off the CCDs -- that's BEFORE processing. If what you're saying were the case in the sense you're saying it, that would be impossible.

The HVX processes at 1920x1080 internally before downsampling for recording. Getting directly at the output of that processor will definately give you a 1920x1080 raster to record - but it can never give you any detail beyond about 1440x810...

And it's worth noting that in real-world tests, the HVX200 yields measurable resolution about what you would expect from a good 960x540 sensor without any fancy processing. Same concept probably applies to the Sony V1U too, but I haven't seen definitive tests of that yet. Bottom line is that the native pixel count does matter, because it's difficult to create detail which isn't available at the sensor level.

I thought this was a discussion of cameras capable of 1920x1080 res, no more no less. All I was trying to get at is that, technically speaking, the HVX doesn't fit into this category. That isn't to say that the HVX is a bad camera, I have no idea to be honest. But from what I have read and the test charts that I have seen, the HVX does not fit into this category.

It's a good point that the JVC can beat an HVX in chart tests even if it can't in tech specs.

What's truly fascinating, is with solid state recording, full raster 1/2" or 2/3" chips and the new 50mbps xdcam and 100mbps AVCintra codecs, the under $10,000 camera market will all be 1920x1080.

Greg, I don't know exactly what the intent of this thread is -- but I too thought it was looking for those that did 'true' 1920x1080 ... and my point was that would exclude all DVCPro100 devices and I think all XDCAM HD devices ...

But if the question is just 'what devices offer 1920x1080 output' ... the answer is everything that claims to be 'high definition', regardless of what it actually can deliver, does deliver, or dreams of delivering.

GB

Geoff,

I'm definitely not trying to argue with you here. I agree, most of the camera's listed in this discussion don't offer true 1920x1080 res from pick-up to output. True 1920x1080 was once reserved for studio use and we are now begining to see full raster hd codecs. I could be wrong here, but since the second episode of Star Wars was shot with a F900 using HDcam, then it was captured at 1440x1080, and not 1920x1080. It's really exciting to see where technology is going. The number of digital cine cams out there now is very exciting.

if you want a list of HD cameras, check this one out:
http://www.hdcompare.com/Cameras.htm

there is a link to a specs comparison chart on the webpage

The 1440x810 refers to the pixel count, the "resolution," of the CCD, not the processed image. As you agree, they're not the same thing.
In the Panasonic paper I linked to, then the 1440x810 limit figure is what they claim as the MAX resolution of the three chip assembly for luminance after processing, the very limit of what you may see off a chart. The text states that the 1440x810 figure ("a theoretical “best case scenario”) is the benefit that their pixel shifting and processing technology gives over what may be expected from 3x960x540 chips - a 1.5x improvement for luminance.

As far as pixel counts go, then there are three relevant numbers:

CCD - 960x540 for each of R,G,B.
Processing - done at 1920x1080
Recording - 1280x1080 or 960x720
In any case, you might want to check with ReelStreem, because they're pulling 2K off the CCDs -- that's BEFORE processing. If what you're saying were the case in the sense you're saying it, that would be impossible.
It's not me saying anything - I'm quoting Panasonics own technical paper about pixel shift. But I really don't see how they can pull 2K off the CCDs before processing - are you sure they are not extracting the processed 1920x1080 raster, before it is normally downsampled for recording? That would make sense. (Though the detail within it could only be up to 1440x810.)

Not quite: in terms of measured TVL resolution the Canon XL-H1 trumped it by a slight margin:

http://www.adamwilt.com/HD/4cams-part2.html

But that's not particularly significant, the real question should be what are you trying to do rather than who records what. A recorded resolution of 1920x1080 pixels means nothing if it's coming from a cell phone with a pinhole plastic lens, so resolution isn't the only thing to consider if you're comparing "digital cinema" cameras.

Sorry, the word "progressive" was supposed to be in there. It has the highest progressive resolution of all the under $10,000 cams according to the DV.com article. My bad.

What about the HC7? It should be around 1920x1080...

So we have to establish a rating for camera.
each level will be rated with a factor from 0 to 1, so we can get the final value.
Example.
SENSOR: full HD =0.9, 1440x1080=0.8, 1280x720=0.7 etc...
add 0.1 if it has 3 sensors.
sensor size : 1 inch= 1, 3/4=.8, 1/2=0.6 etc...
recording: full HD=1, HDV(1080/720)=0.8
pixel depth:12 bit=1 10bit=0.9 8bit=0.8 etc..
luma/color ratio: 4:4:4 =1, 4:2:2=0.9 4:2:0=0.8

the you multiply all factor and get the real value of the camera.

the you multiply all factor and get the real value of the camera.

No you will get a number. Which may, or may not have anything to do with the real world performance or "value" of the cam.

if you want a list of HD cameras, check this one out:
http://www.hdcompare.com/Cameras.htm

there is a link to a specs comparison chart on the webpage

Pretty cool link.

Good point Ken, numbers don't equal camera's. Now will we ever see an under $10k cam that is full raster HD? Hmmm. Maybe in 20 years, 4k will be akin to U-bit.

[QUOTE=Greg Hartzell;678573] Now will we ever see an under $10k cam that is full raster HD? .[/QUOTE

Ya, the JVC's.

Ah yes, I knew that JVC's pro-hd were full raster 1280x720. I should have specified 1920x1080.

WHoa...what...why? What is this cam used for..? 1000fps?Have you ever seen super-duper slow-mo shots of a drop of milk? Awesome stuff. Takes a lot of light though. The sensor doesn't have the chance to collect a lot of photons when the frame rate is that fast.

I could be wrong here, but since the second episode of Star Wars was shot with a F900 using HDcam, then it was captured at 1440x1080, and not 1920x1080.

Episode II was captured at 1920x1080 using a modified camera.

Any details on the modded cam?